Speculation: Upcoming Expansion Draft Discussion

[Pirate King Luffy]

If Clarkson is traded, that means Vegas won't have to pay him anything since his contract is insured. So they are getting a free first. Unless they don't plan to put him on IR and use up a roster spot for the cap.

 

[Anglesmith]

If Clarkson is traded, that means Vegas won't have to pay him anything since his contract is insured. So they are getting a free first. Unless they don't plan to put him on IR and use up a roster spot for the cap.

I believe insurance covers 80% from what I heard on NHL radio.

 

[Lunatik]

If Clarkson is traded, that means Vegas won't have to pay him anything since his contract is insured. So they are getting a free first. Unless they don't plan to put him on IR and use up a roster spot for the cap.

Actually they might still have to pay him some. Blue Jackets fans are saying his contract is insured for 80% and there is some question about whether or not the annual signing bonuses are covered. So the team either has to pay $3,000,000 or $11,800,000 depending how the insurance is structured. Protection on policies ranges from 50-100%

 

[Fig]

If Clarkson is traded, that means Vegas won't have to pay him anything since his contract is insured. So they are getting a free first. Unless they don't plan to put him on IR and use up a roster spot for the cap.

I don't think that's not how IR works. IR allows you to exceed the cap and open a roster spot previously unavailable if the player was healthy. His full cap will count towards the floor if Vegas. I believe the Coyotes do this instead of overpaying players to hit the floor like we did a few years back.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

You are getting mad because you assumed something (several times) and then MM didn't know about your injury.

[MOD] you assuming everyone has the same time/access to local news media as you was the flawed assumption.

(I also agree that you are interpreting them wrong and then blasting people for not following along)



On topic, IF Neal is available like Lebrun is theorizing, I hope we're in on it.

Neal is a big upgrade from Ferland, but he's still a LHS. Would rather go for Aberg or Arvidsson on the Preds.

 

[Lunatik]

There is speculation that James Neal will be unprotected. I wonder if we could get a goalie and Neal from Vegas post-expansion? 1st in 2017 and a defense prospect for Neal and Raanta

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Imagine if Treliving pulled off Neal, Hjalmarsson and Raanta/Grubauer.

 

[Lunatik]

Imagine if Treliving pulled off Neal, Hjalmarsson and Raanta/Grubauer.

This reaction:

Then this reaction:

 

[InfinityIggy]

Imagine if Treliving pulled off Neal, Hjalmarsson and Raanta/Grubauer.

Gaudreau - Monahan - Neal
Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik

Giordano - Hamilton
Brodie - Hjalmarsson

Raanta/Gubauer
Johnson?

Looks spicy.

 

[Lunatik]

Gaudreau - Monahan - Neal
Tkachuk - Backlund - Frolik

Giordano - Hamilton
Brodie - Hjalmarsson

Raanta/Gubauer
Johnson?

Looks spicy.

COnfirmed: II hates Bennett

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

There is speculation that James Neal will be unprotected. I wonder if we could get a goalie and Neal from Vegas post-expansion? 1st in 2017 and a defense prospect for Neal and Raanta

Im sure all those assets would be in play, but it won't be cheap. I'm thinking Ferland, Hickey and our 2017 1st.

 

[Body Checker]

I am going to predict LV takes Shinkaruk as I think they will take on enough salary from other teams for assets we won't give (i.e our 1st) that from some teams they have to take young unproven talent. Shinkaruk is a guy that could be a Baertschi/Granlund for Vegas.

 

[Calculon]

Can't see Treliving moving Ferland at all given how glowingly he spoke of him. Neal's a solid player but I also wouldn't give up a first and a good prospect for yet another left hand shot soon-to-be-30 with just a single year left on his contract.

Based on what Treliving has said, I'd be surprised if he makes a big splash up front. He said he expects the majority of improvement to come from within so that almost certainly means relying on Tkachuk, Bennett, Lazar, Monahan, and Ferland to carry the mail so to speak.

 

[Body Checker]

Can't see Treliving moving Ferland at all given how glowingly he spoke of him. Neal's a solid player but I also wouldn't give up a first and a good prospect for yet another left hand shot soon-to-be-30 with just a single year left on his contract.

Based on what Treliving has said, I'd be surprised if he makes a big splash up front. He said he expects the majority of improvement to come from within so that almost certainly means relying on Tkachuk, Bennett, Lazar, Monahan, and Ferland to carry the mail so to speak.

Gaudreau, Backlund, Frolik..............that's a pretty good top 9 minus one.........yeah concentrate on goalies and a defenceman for Brodie.............Versteeg can be re-signed with Brouwer/Jankowski as back up options to solidfy that top 9

 

[Lunatik]

Im sure all those assets would be in play, but it won't be cheap. I'm thinking Ferland, Hickey and our 2017 1st.

I wouldn't move Hickey, I think he will sign and he's a type of defenseman we just don't have in the system. I know it's an unpopular opinion but I would move Kylington or Fox before Hickey. Of course Treliving knows better than I do about Hickey's status and willingness to sign, so if he thinks he's a flight risk, then yeah move him.

 

[SKRusty]

@Rusty, dang, that sucks. Sorry to hear about your ankle.

Thanks but everybody has their challenges in their life. This just happens to be mine.

However, IMO, Treliving is not targeting who we all think he is. He will likely bust out a crazy deal in the same vein as Hamilton. We'll all scratch our heads wondering how the hell he knew the guy was even available. If we end up with a lacklustre option, I think the real deal fell through at the last moment. I'm crazily thinking that chatting about MAF was actually a ploy to see if he could keep the channels open on MM. But, I'd rather just see things play out than go further in what most other posters would call, "A fantasy". I think we end up with someone who hasn't really been discussed yet. Another similar vein as Elliott.

I think that is what he is trying for whether it be a Schnieder, Quick, Rask or somebody in that mold. There are still the fall backs of Miller, Elliott, and a few others on the UFA market.

On topic, IF Neal is available like Lebrun is theorizing, I hope we're in on it.

Feland and Neal are of the same ilk. Ferland being younger is the smart choice IMO. I am actually kind of looking forward to seeing what a season on the Monahan Gaudreau line will do for Ferly. Micheal has worked hard for his dues and after being arguably the best player behind the 3 M line in the first half the season he deserves the opportunity. Unfortunately he has suffered looking back now at some bad coaching decisions the last couple seasons putting him behind Colborne, Hudler (15-16), Chaisson, and Brouwer.

Can't see Treliving moving Ferland at all given how glowingly he spoke of him. Neal's a solid player but I also wouldn't give up a first and a good prospect for yet another left hand shot soon-to-be-30 with just a single year left on his contract.

Based on what Treliving has said, I'd be surprised if he makes a big splash up front. He said he expects the majority of improvement to come from within so that almost certainly means relying on Tkachuk, Bennett, Lazar, Monahan, and Ferland to carry the mail so to speak.

Other than a top 4 D-man and a starting goalie I expect almost no movement.

In regards to the expansion draft I wish for Vegas to pick up Brouwer or Stajan so we can see players like Jankowski, Klimchuck, and/or Shinkaruk in the line-up. In reality I don't see that happening unless BT encourages Vegas to select them by sweetening the pot.

Vegas will likely draft younger players in the draft and then fill out the line-up with players like Iggy, Sam Gagner, Winnik, Marleau, Laich, Vanek, and Hudler hoping they have good enough seasons to pay dividends at the trade deadline.

 

[Skobel24]

I am going to predict LV takes Shinkaruk as I think they will take on enough salary from other teams for assets we won't give (i.e our 1st) that from some teams they have to take young unproven talent. Shinkaruk is a guy that could be a Baertschi/Granlund for Vegas.

Agreed. There are plenty of better dmen than Kulak. Shinkaruk still has potential to be a solid middle 6 winger, and he's young and inexpensive. I think Stajan would be their next choice. I know a lot of posters here are hopeful that Brouwer is claimed, but I really can't see it happening. If they want leadership/veteran presence, they can get someone better and cheaper than Brouwer.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

So Fleury waived his no move clause. Allowing him to be exposed.

Why wouldn't McPhee pick Hornqvist anyway? Hornqvist has got way more value, doesn't he?

 

[Anglesmith]

I feel like Vegas would take one of Bouma/Stajan/Brouwer before they take Kulak or Shinkaruk. I don't feel like they are going to take risks on guys who have a high chance of a) not being a contributor at the NHL level and b) don't really have trade value.

They have 30 picks to set up their franchise, so they need to make sure they get value in at least some form out of every single pick. Picking Shinkaruk or Kulak could turn out to be a massive waste. You hope that even if you pick an overpaid winger, you can at least trade him with salary retained on reputation at the deadline.

 

[Anglesmith]

So Fleury waived his no move clause. Allowing him to be exposed.

Why wouldn't McPhee pick Hornqvist anyway? Hornqvist has got way more value, doesn't he?

Really hard to say who they'll pick still, but the point of this isn't that it's a foregone conclusion that Fleury will go to Vegas. The point is that by him waiving this, the Penguins can protect Matt Murray. If Fleury refused to waive, they'd need to either find a trade immediately (with other teams knowing they're desperate- and it would need to be approved by Fleury) or else buy him out to do that. Now they can hold onto both if they want, and wait for the right trade.

 

[Volica]

I feel like Vegas would take one of Bouma/Stajan/Brouwer before they take Kulak or Shinkaruk. I don't feel like they are going to take risks on guys who have a high chance of a) not being a contributor at the NHL level and b) don't really have trade value.

They have 30 picks to set up their franchise, so they need to make sure they get value in at least some form out of every single pick. Picking Shinkaruk or Kulak could turn out to be a massive waste. You hope that even if you pick an overpaid winger, you can at least trade him with salary retained on reputation at the deadline.

I've had a hard read on what they're going to be looking for.
I think Stajan would be a good option for them. Their centre depth is going to be atrocious; there won't be many quality centres available. Stajan's a guy who's got leadership out the wazoo, has played on top lines before and could potentially be a stop gap top 6 centre on a team that'll desperately need the depth down the middle.

Also, if he's given a good opportunity he could potentially produce for them. Would end up being a good deadline candidate.

 

[DCDM]

Gaudreau - Monahan - Neal

This makes me feel things.

 

[Fig]

Is there a way to entice Vegas to take both Brouwer and Stajan? It could work for both teams.

Stajan is a good training wheels stop gap sort of guy. I don't mind keeping him, but what if he's somehow an enticing piece for Vegas?

Brouwer is supposed to be good in the room. Ignoring the hate, he's stuck in a middle 6 log jam situation. He has familiarity with McPhee. On Vegas, he may not have to compete for Lazar and Frolik for a middle 6 RW position. He can produce, we just want more. He's overpaid, but Vegas perhaps may not mind too much if they need to reach the cap floor.

I honestly think Brouwer can elevate his game, but I am curious if there's a scenario where Vegas takes both. Would a prospect be enough to make Vegas consider it?


(ie: Shink + Stajan for future consideration; Vegas drafts Brouwer?) or will it take more?


Vegas gets good pieces for their start. We get cap and open positions for kids to play.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Is there a way to entice Vegas to take both Brouwer and Stajan? It could work for both teams.

Stajan is a good training wheels stop gap sort of guy. I don't mind keeping him, but what if he's somehow an enticing piece for Vegas?

Brouwer is supposed to be good in the room. Ignoring the hate, he's stuck in a middle 6 log jam situation. He has familiarity with McPhee. On Vegas, he may not have to compete for Lazar and Frolik for a middle 6 RW position. He can produce, we just want more. He's overpaid, but Vegas perhaps may not mind too much if they need to reach the cap floor.

I honestly think Brouwer can elevate his game, but I am curious if there's a scenario where Vegas takes both. Would a prospect be enough to make Vegas consider it?


(ie: Shink + Stajan for future consideration; Vegas drafts Brouwer?) or will it take more?


Vegas gets good pieces for their start. We get cap and open positions for kids to play.

I think we'd have to pay more to be honest.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Treliving seemed pretty certain that the expansion draft will help us out cap wise. Although logic may point to Vegas going young, I think value is going to be important for them as people have already mentioned.

The one Treliving interview makes it seem like he's got a pretty good read that Vegas will take Brouwer, Bouma or Stajan. Which may suggest a deal already in place to incentivize the move for Vegas.

Though I'd argue, against a pretty popular belief, that losing Stajan doesn't help us out near as much as people think. Bouma is ideally a 13th forward or 4th line winger. Brouwer is ideally a 3rd line winger. Stajan is still a very useful C, who can play up to the 3rd line. I'd rather pay 3.15 for 1 more year of a 3C, than 2.2M for 1 more year of a 13th forward, and would rather pay both than 4.5 for 3 more years of a 3rd line winger.

In order of preference for Vegas' pick from Calgary it would be - Brouwer, Bouma, Stajan.

I think Brouwer really has nowhere to go but up after a horrible year, but that contract will still hurt. Paying Vegas to take Brouwer would require Treliving to admit his mistake a year after handing out that contract, which not many GM's will do, but I do think of any of the 31 would, Tre is one of the most likely to.

If Treliving doesn't take the free out (essentially) to position this team for long term success by losing 3 years of an anchor, I'd say that would go down as his worst move to date, ahead of the Brouwer contract itself.